Technology Depends on Structure

 It is impossible to say anything about technology in the abstract. Some, often referred to as “cornucopians” have tried to argue that technology is inherently beneficial to both the climate and society; while it may cause temporary problems, continued technological growth will eventually solve all the problems it creates. Others have argued that technological growth because it is accompanied by economic growth and consumption necessarily increases environmental impact. I would argue instead that technology is neither inherently beneficial nor harmful. Instead it is entirely contextual as different technologies will interact in different ways with both the climate and society depending upon the social, political, and environmental contexts they are developed and deployed in.
Take GMO crops for example. GMO crops are often touted as technologies which will both decrease poverty and hunger, by increasing crop yields, and decreasing irrigation and environmental problems. While the potential might exists for gmo technologies to provide these benefits, for the most part they have not as many areas that adopt them suffer even worse environmental problems. (For instance, Mexican farmers who have planted GMO maize which produces its own pesticide have seen the development of “super bugs” which are resistant to the pesticide). With the introduction of GMO crops, farmers are encouraged to which to Western style monocroping, which leads to erosion and soil degradation. Further, because GMOs are often patented by a company, farmers are banned from saving their seed and often have to pay high premium for the “rights” to certain crops. This has created a cycle of dependency and debt which turn farmers into corporate vassals. Why in this case is technology harmful? GMO technology is owned and controlled for the most part by corporate interests such as Monsanto, who are concerned mostly with profit. Thus, for the most part they produce GMO crops which are designed to benefit them primarily. For instance, Monsanto makes a series of crops which are designed to be resistant to Roundup pesticide, which they also own.  GMO crops because of the context they exist in.
However, other technological advancements such as improvements in municipal recycling do seem to benefit the environment and society at large. This is because the technologies are utilized as a public service. Further, the internet, while it require the use of electricity, has greatly increased the ability of new environmental ideas to spread. Many environmental NGOs and activist have successfully used the internet to increase the reach of their ideas in ways never before possible. The internet, as concept is relatively cheap and accessible to a large amount of people. Thus it has a larger potential to be a force for environmental and social good.
Other technologies such as appliances, cell phones and other personal items, tend to be harmful to the environment because they are created and used in the context of consumerism. Consumerism encourages people to consume large amounts of stuff, most of which they will throw out in a few months. Further it encourages people to ignore the origins of their products and the environmental harm their production has caused.
Overall, it appears that because much of the technology we use exists within the context of corporate greed, consumerism, and industrial capitalism, it tends to be harmful to the environment. That is not to say that it is inherently harmful however. If you change the social structure in which technology is embedded, you will change its effects.